God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving due penalty for their error (Romans 1:26)
I understand that there is no word in either ancient Hebrew or Greek that corresponds to "homosexual" in the sense that we use it today. We use the term as inclusive of those who have a “natural” sexual attraction to others of the same gender. Most would accept as fact that in both the general animal kingdom and within humanity some individuals are born with a natural sexual attraction to other individuals of the same gender. It is my understanding that to the degree that the ancients were concerned with the subject of sexual orientation at all, they were concerned with specific sex acts rather than natural sexual orientation. Some ancient texts indicate that the ancients discriminated between eunuchs by birth and those who became eunuchs later through surgical castration. The first use of the word "homosexual" in the Bible did not occur until 1946 with the publication of the Revised Standard Version translation of the Bible.
With this background information, is it logical to interpret Romans 1:26 as being a condemnation of lust rather than homosexual orientation? Lust meaning sexual acts that are not part of a loving relationship, be those acts homosexual or heterosexual. What is the Catholic interpretation of Romans 1:26? Do any Christian denominations interpret this passage as not being a condemnation of sexual acts within a loving same sex relationship?